DOCSLIB.ORG

Clickjacking: Attacks and Defenses

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Clickjacking: Attacks and Defenses Clickjacking: Attacks and Defenses Lin-Shung Huang1, Alex Moshchuk2, Helen Wang2, Stuart Schechter2, and Collin Jackson1 1Carnegie Mellon University 2Microsoft Research Example: Likejacking attacker.com Claim your FREE iPad attacker.com The user is tricked to click on something he didn’t intend to click on 2 Outline • Defining clickjacking • Existing defenses are insufficient – We evade them with three new attack variants – Our user study on Amazon Mechanical Turk shows that people fall for these attacks • New defense to address root causes – Our user study demonstrates its effectiveness 3 Defining clickjacking • Prerequisite: multiple mutually distrusting applications sharing the same display • An attack application compromises context integrity of another application’s UI when the user acts on the UI Visual integrity Context integrity consists of Target is visible visual integrity + temporal integrity Pointer is visible 1. Target checked 2. Initiate click 3. Target clicked Temporal integrity Target = Target clicked checked 4 Pointerclicked = Pointerchecked Compromise visual integrity – target • Hiding the target • Partial overlays $ 0 $ 0 Click 5 Compromise visual integrity – pointer • Manipulating cursor feedback Claim your FREE iPad 6 Compromise temporal integrity • Bait-and-switch Claim your FREE iPad 7 EXISTING DEFENSES 8 Existing defenses to protect visual integrity • User confirmation – degrades user experience • UI randomization – unreliable (e.g. multi-click attacks) • Framebusting (X-Frame-Options) – incompatible with embedding 3rd-party objects • Opaque overlay policy (Gazelle browser) – breaks legitimate sites • Visibility detection on click (NoScript) – false positives 9 Protecting temporal integrity • Imposing a delay after displaying UI – annoying to user None of current defenses consider pointer 10 NEW ATTACK VARIANTS 1. Accessing user’s webcam 2. Stealing user’s email 3. Revealing user’s identity 11 Evaluating attacks • 2064 Amazon Mechanical Turk web users – 25 cents per user – Users can only participate once, and only for one treatment 12 Attack #1: Accessing User’s Webcam Fake cursor Real cursor Attack technique: cursor-spoofing Attack success: 43% (31/72) 13 Attack #2: Stealing User’s Emails Attack technique: pop-up window Attack success: 47% (43/90) 14 Attack #3: Revealing User’s Identity • Whack-a-mole game Attack technique: cursor-spoofing + fast-paced clicking Attack success: 98% (83/84) 15 InContext Defense 16 Design Goals • Should support embedding 3rd-party objects • Should not prompt users for their actions • Should not break existing sites • Should be resilient to new attack vectors 17 InContext Defense • A set of techniques to ensure context integrity for user actions • Server opt-in approach – Let websites indicate their sensitive UIs – Let browsers enforce context integrity when users act on the sensitive UIs attacker.com 18 Ensuring visual integrity of target • Dynamic OS-level screenshot comparison – processing delay on click < 30ms (prototype on IE 9) What is displayed What should be seen (OS screenshot) (Reference bitmap) 19 Ensuring visual integrity of pointer • Remove cursor customization – Attack success: 43% -> 16% 20 Ensuring visual integrity of pointer • Freeze screen around target on pointer entry – Attack success: 43% -> 15% – Attack success (margin=10px): 12% – Attack success (margin=20px): 4% (baseline:5%) Margin=10pxMargin=20px 21 Ensuring visual integrity of pointer • Lightbox effect around target on pointer entry – Attack success (Freezing + lightbox): 2% 22 Enforcing temporal integrity User checks target Enforce User clicks target temporal integrity System delivers click to target app • UI delay: after visual changes on target or pointer, invalidate clicks for X ms • Pointer re-entry: after visual changes on target, invalidate clicks until pointer re-enters target 23 Enforcing temporal integrity • UI delay: after visual changes on target or pointer, invalidate clicks for X ms – Attack success (delay=250ms): 47% -> 2% (2/91) – Attack success (delay=500ms): 1% (1/89) 24 Enforcing temporal integrity • Pointer re-entry: after visual changes on target, invalidate clicks until pointer re-enters target – Attack success: 0% (0/88) 25 Whack-a-mole attack • Exclude victims who were moving their pointer around the Like button for many seconds, and deliberating whether or not to click • Defense against clickjacking aspects – Screen freezing, margin=20px: 98% -> 16% – Screen freezing, margin=20px, pointer entry delay=500ms: 4% – Screen freezing, margin=20px, pointer entry delay=1000ms: 1% • Social eng. aspects – 63% users intentionally clicked on Like button after our defenses made them fully aware of this 26 Conclusion • We demonstrated new clickjacking variants that can evade current defenses • Our user studies show that our attacks are highly effective (success rates 43% to 98%) • Our InContext defense can be very effective against clickjacking – Ongoing efforts: UI Safety W3C proposal 27 QUESTIONS? [email protected] 28 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Clickjacking
    Security Now! Transcript of Episode #168 Page 1 of 18 Transcript of Episode #168 ClickJacking Description: Steve and Leo discuss yet another challenge to surfing safely in the web world: Known as "ClickJacking," or more formally as "UI Redressing," this class of newly popular threats tricks web users into performing web-based actions they don't intend by leading them to believe they are doing something else entirely. High quality (64 kbps) mp3 audio file URL: http://media.GRC.com/sn/SN-168.mp3 Quarter size (16 kbps) mp3 audio file URL: http://media.GRC.com/sn/sn-168-lq.mp3 INTRO: Netcasts you love, from people you trust. This is TWiT. Leo Laporte: Bandwidth for Security Now! is provided by AOL Radio at AOL.com/podcasting. This is Security Now! with Steve Gibson, Episode 168 for October 30, 2008: Clickjacking. It's time for Security Now!, the show where we cover everything you'd ever want to know about security. And we do it with a guy who is the king, really, as far as I'm concerned, the man who discovered spyware, named spyware, wrote some of the most used security utilities out there, including ShieldsUP!, Mr. Steve Gibson of GRC.com. Hi, Steve. Steve Gibson: Yes, in fact sometimes we're discussing things that you'd rather wish weren't the case. I mean... Leo: Well, lately it's been kind of bleak because it's like, there's bad stuff, and there doesn't really seem like there's any cure. Steve: Yes, that's true.
    [Show full text]
  • A Semi-Automated Security Advisory System to Resist Cyber-Attack in Social Networks
    A Semi-Automated Security Advisory System to Resist Cyber-attack in Social Networks Samar Muslah Albladi and George R S Weir University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G1 1XH, UK {samar.albladi; george.weir}@strath.ac.uk Abstract. Social networking sites often witness various types of social engi- neering (SE) attacks. Yet, limited research has addressed the most severe types of social engineering in social networks (SNs). The present study in- vestigates the extent to which people respond differently to different types of attack in a social network context and how we can segment users based on their vulnerability. In turn, this leads to the prospect of a personalised security advisory system. 316 participants have completed an online-ques- tionnaire that includes a scenario-based experiment. The study result re- veals that people respond to cyber-attacks differently based on their de- mographics. Furthermore, people’s competence, social network experience, and their limited connections with strangers in social networks can decrease their likelihood of falling victim to some types of attacks more than others. Keywords: Advisory System, Social Engineering, Social Networks. 1 Introduction Individuals and organisations are becoming increasingly dependent on working with computers, accessing the World Wide Web and, more importantly, sharing data through virtual communication. This makes cyber-security one of today’s greatest issues. Pro- tecting people and organisations from being targeted by cybercriminals is becoming a priority for industry and academia [1]. This is due to the huge potential damage that could be associated with losing valuable data and documents in such attacks. Previous research focuses on identifying factors that influence people’s vulnerability to cyber-attack [2] as the human has been characterised as the weakest link in infor- mation security research.
    [Show full text]
  • Financial Fraud and Internet Banking: Threats and Countermeasures
    Report Financial Fraud and Internet Banking: Threats and Countermeasures By François Paget, McAfee® Avert® Labs Report Financial Fraud and Internet Banking: Threats and Countermeasures Table of Contents Some Figures 3 U.S. Federal Trade Commission Statistics 3 CyberSource 4 Internet Crime Complaint Center 4 In Europe 5 The Many Faces of Fraud 6 Small- and large-scale identity theft 7 Carding and skimming 8 Phishing and pharming 8 Crimeware 9 Money laundering 10 Mules 10 Virtual casinos 11 Pump and dump 12 Nigerian advance fee fraud (419 fraud) 12 Auctions 14 Online shopping 16 Anonymous payment methods 17 Protective Measures 18 Scoring 18 Europay, MasterCard, and Visa (EMV) standard 18 PCI-DSS 19 Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) and Transport Secured Layer (TLS) protocols 19 SSL extended validation 20 3-D Secure technology 21 Strong authentication and one-time password devices 22 Knowledge-based authentication 23 Email authentication 23 Conclusion 24 About McAfee, Inc. 26 Report Financial Fraud and Internet Banking: Threats and Countermeasures Financial fraud has many faces. Whether it involves swindling, debit or credit card fraud, real estate fraud, drug trafficking, identity theft, deceptive telemarketing, or money laundering, the goal of cybercriminals is to make as much money as possible within a short time and to do so inconspicuously. This paper will introduce you to an array of threats facing banks and their customers. It includes some statistics and descriptions of solutions that should give readers—whether they are responsible for security in a financial organization or a customer—an overview of the current situation. Some Figures U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Clickjacking: Attacks and Defenses
    Clickjacking: Attacks and Defenses Lin-Shung Huang Alex Moshchuk Helen J. Wang Carnegie Mellon University Microsoft Research Microsoft Research [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Stuart Schechter Collin Jackson Microsoft Research Carnegie Mellon University [email protected] [email protected] Abstract such as a “claim your free iPad” button. Hence, when Clickjacking attacks are an emerging threat on the web. the user “claims” a free iPad, a story appears in the user’s In this paper, we design new clickjacking attack variants Facebook friends’ news feed stating that she “likes” the using existing techniques and demonstrate that existing attacker web site. For ease of exposition, our description clickjacking defenses are insufficient. Our attacks show will be in the context of web browsers. Nevertheless, the that clickjacking can cause severe damages, including concepts and techniques described are generally applica- compromising a user’s private webcam, email or other ble to all client operating systems where display is shared private data, and web surfing anonymity. by mutually distrusting principals. We observe the root cause of clickjacking is that an Several clickjacking defenses have been proposed and attacker application presents a sensitive UI element of a deployed for web browsers, but all have shortcomings. target application out of context to a user (such as hiding Today’s most widely deployed defenses rely on frame- the sensitive UI by making it transparent), and hence the busting [21, 37], which disallows a sensitive page from user is tricked to act out of context. To address this root being framed (i.e., embedded within another web page).
    [Show full text]
  • A Case Study on Clickjacking Attack and Location Leakage
    International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 7, July-2014 190 ISSN 2229-5518 A Case Study on Clickjacking Attack and Location Leakage Lim Chin Nei, Loo Yow Cherng, Manmeet Mahinderjit Singh Abstract— The advanced in technologies such as mobile devices, GSP, WIFI, and 3G has encourage the information sharing using social media. The large amount of information shared on social media often lead to security issues which are unaware by the users. This information may include sensitive information such as a person’s name, location, relationship status and many more and can be dangerous if is put in a wrong hand. In this research, we provide a review on the type of social media ad what are the current threat in social media. We then focus on two specific threat namely clickjacking and location leakage, and proposed a solution for each of it as well as the evaluation of the solution. Index Terms—Security; Social media; Attack; Defense Machine, Clickjacking, Location leakage —————————— —————————— 1 INTRODUCTION This rapid shift of technologies in this era of informa- media. With this large amount of information shared online, tion and communication has dramatically boosted the usage the social media actually has become a perfect platform for of the social media. With the advanced in technologies such hackers to find their victims. The information shared using as smart mobile devices, GPS, WIFI, and 3G services, user social media often contain sensitive and private information were able to connect to the internet regardless of time and which can be easily compromised by the hackers.
    [Show full text]
  • Cisco 2017 Midyear Cybersecurity Report
    Cisco 2017 Midyear Cybersecurity Report 1 Executive Summary Table of Contents Executive Summary ..........................................................03 Vulnerabilities update: Rise in attacks following key disclosures ................................................................ 47 Major Findings ..................................................................05 Don’t let DevOps technologies leave the Introduction ......................................................................07 business exposed ............................................................ 50 Attacker Behavior .............................................................09 Organizations not moving fast enough to patch Exploit kits: Down, but not likely out ................................. 09 known Memcached server vulnerabilities ......................... 54 How defender behavior can shift attackers’ focus ...........11 Malicious hackers head to the cloud to shorten the path to top targets ..................................................... 56 Web attack methods provide evidence of a mature Internet ............................................................. 12 Unmanaged infrastructure and endpoints leave organizations at risk ......................................................... 59 Web block activity around the globe ................................ 13 Security Challenges and Opportunities Spyware really is as bad as it sounds............................... 14 for Defenders ...................................................................61
    [Show full text]
  • Comparisons of Machine Learning Techniques for Detecting Malicious Webpages ⇑ H.B
    Expert Systems with Applications 42 (2015) 1166–1177 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Expert Systems with Applications journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa Comparisons of machine learning techniques for detecting malicious webpages ⇑ H.B. Kazemian , S. Ahmed Intelligent Systems Research Centre, School of Computing, London Metropolitan University, United Kingdom article info abstract Article history: This paper compares machine learning techniques for detecting malicious webpages. The conventional Available online 16 September 2014 method of detecting malicious webpages is going through the black list and checking whether the web- pages are listed. Black list is a list of webpages which are classified as malicious from a user’s point of Keywords: view. These black lists are created by trusted organizations and volunteers. They are then used by modern K-Nearest Neighbor web browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, etc. However, black list is ineffective because of Support Vector Machine the frequent-changing nature of webpages, growing numbers of webpages that pose scalability issues Naive Bayes and the crawlers’ inability to visit intranet webpages that require computer operators to log in as authen- Affinity Propagation ticated users. In this paper therefore alternative and novel approaches are used by applying machine K-Means Supervised and unsupervised learning learning algorithms to detect malicious webpages. In this paper three supervised machine learning techniques such as K-Nearest Neighbor, Support Vector Machine and Naive Bayes Classifier, and two unsupervised machine learning techniques such as K-Means and Affinity Propagation are employed. Please note that K-Means and Affinity Propagation have not been applied to detection of malicious web- pages by other researchers.
    [Show full text]
  • UI Redressing and Clickjacking: About Click Fraud and Data Theft
    Introduction Attack vectors Counteractive measures Conclusion and outlook UI Redressing and Clickjacking: About click fraud and data theft Marcus Niemietz [email protected] Ruhr-University Bochum Chair for Network and Data Security 25th of November 2011 Marcus Niemietz, RUB @Zeronights UI Redressing and Clickjacking Introduction Attack vectors Counteractive measures Conclusion and outlook Short and crisp details about me Studying \IT-Security/Information Technology", RUB \Computer Science", Distance University Hagen B.Sc. in \IT-Security/Information Technology" Books Authentication Web Pages with Selenium ≥Feb. 2012: Clickjacking und UI-Redressing International speaker Work: RUB, Pixelboxx, ISP and IT-Security, Freelancer (trainings, penetration tests) Twitter: @mniemietz Marcus Niemietz, RUB @Zeronights UI Redressing and Clickjacking Introduction Attack vectors Counteractive measures Conclusion and outlook Contents 1 Introduction UI redressing Clickjacking 2 Attack vectors UI redressing Round up Clickjacking Tool 3 Counteractive measures Frame busting Busting frame busting Clickjacking statistics 4 Conclusion and outlook Marcus Niemietz, RUB @Zeronights UI Redressing and Clickjacking Introduction Attack vectors UI redressing Counteractive measures Clickjacking Conclusion and outlook Introduction Google Inc. can generate a profit of over $8.5 billion in 2010 Interesting for commercial companies to offer web applications shopping banking share status messages New attacks available that can bypass existing protection mechanisms CSRF
    [Show full text]
  • Scams and Spam to Avoid on Facebook
    Security Response in association with: Scams and Spam to Avoid on Facebook Candid Wüest Principal Software Engineer foreword by the Facebook Security Team Foreword Contents At Facebook, we work hard to protect the people that use our service. We in- Foreword ............................................................ 1 vest in equipment, develop proprietary tools, create innovative security fea- Summary ............................................................ 2 tures and devote hundreds of employees around the world to keep you and Introduction ...................................................... 2 your data safe. But we can’t do this alone, which is why we worked on a guide Attack types ....................................................... 2 with our friends at Symantec to educate people on the most prevalent threats Like/share-baiting ........................................ 3 we are seeing and the best ways for users to keep their data safe while online. Like clickjacking ........................................... 4 We process a huge amount of content to protect the people on Facebook – Malicious (iFrame) application ................... 5 every single day we vet over 26 billion pieces of content and 2 trillion link Self-XSS copy/paste attacks ....................... 6 clicks. But with more than 800 million people visiting our site each month Tagging ......................................................... 8 and more than 400 million visiting every day, Facebook has become an Phishing ......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Threat Landscape Report – 1St Quarter 2018
    TLP-AMBER Threat Landscape Report – 1st Quarter 2018 (FINAL) V1.0 – 10/04/2018 This quarterly report summarises the most significant direct cyber threats to EU institutions, bodies, and agencies (EU-I or 'Constituents') in Part I, the development of cyber-threats on a broader scale in Part II, and recent technical trends in Part III. KEY FINDINGS Direct Threats • In Europe, APT28 / Sofacy threat actor (likely affiliated to Russia military intelligence GRU) targeted government institutions related to foreign affairs and attendees of a military conference. Another threat actor, Turla (likely affiliated to Russia’s security service FSB) executed a cyber-operation against foreign affairs entities in a European country. • A spear-phishing campaign that targeted European foreign ministries in the end of 2017 was attributed to a China-based threat actor (Ke3chang) which has a long track record of targeting EU institutions (since 2011). As regards cyber-criminality against EU institutions, attempts to deliver banking trojans are stable, ransomware activities are still in decline and cryptojacking on the rise. Phishing lures involve generic matters (’invoice’, ‘payment’, ‘purchase’, ‘wire transfer’, ‘personal banking’, ‘job application’) and more specific ones (foreign affairs issues, European think tanks matters, energy contracts, EU delegation, EU watch keeper). Almost all EU-I are affected by credential leaks (email address | password) on pastebin-like websites. Several credential- harvesting attempts have also been detected. Attackers keep attempting to lure EU-I staff by employing custom methods such as spoofed EU-I email addresses or weaponisation of EU-I documents. Broader Threats • Critical infrastructure. In the energy sector, the US authorities have accused Russian actors of targeting critical infrastructure (including nuclear) for several years and are expecting this to continue in 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Detecting Malicious Campaigns in Obfuscated Javascript with Scalable Behavioral Analysis
    Detecting malicious campaigns in obfuscated JavaScript with scalable behavioral analysis 1st Oleksii Starov 2nd Yuchen Zhou 3rd Jun Wang Palo Alto Networks, Inc. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—Modern security crawlers and firewall solutions for malicious scripts [4], [10], [13]. However, proposed sys- have to analyze millions of websites on a daily basis, and tems usually require additional instrumentation and resources significantly more JavaScript samples. At the same time, fast that are unsuitable for near real-time analysis on a large static approaches, such as file signatures and hash matching, often are not enough to detect advanced malicious campaigns, population of URLs. Moreover, such approaches use machine i.e., obfuscated, packed, or randomized scripts. As such, low- learning models, which must be trained and calibrated to overhead yet efficient dynamic analysis is required. minimize false positives. In contrast, there is lack of research In the current paper we describe behavioral analysis after in terms of lightweight behavioral detection methods and indi- executing all the scripts on web pages, similarly to how real cators of dynamic script execution that conclusively determine browsers do. Then, we apply light “behavioral signatures” to the malicious behavior. To the best of our knowledge, we are the collected dynamic indicators, such as global variables declared during runtime, popup messages shown to the user, established first to present a systematic case-study on detecting modern WebSocket connections. Using this scalable method for a month, malicious campaigns with such scalable dynamic analysis. we enhanced the coverage of a commercial URL filtering product In this paper, we describe behavioral analysis that exe- by detecting 8,712 URLs with intrusive coin miners.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Security Threat Report
    INTERNET SECURITY THREAT REPORT 2011 Trends Volume 17 Published April 2012 INTERNET SECURITY THREAT REPORT Paul Wood Mathew Nisbet Executive Editor Malware Data Analyst Manager, Cyber Security Intelligence Security Technology and Response Security Technology and Response Nicholas Johnston Gerry Egan Sr. Software Engineer Sr. Director, Product Management Security Technology and Response Security Technology and Response Bhaskar Krishnappa Kevin Haley Sr. Software Engineer Director, Product Management Security Technology and Response Security Technology and Response Irfan Asrar Tuan-Khanh Tran Security Response Manager Group Product Manager Security Technology and Response Security Technology and Response Sean Hittel Orla Cox Principal Software Engineer Sr. Manager, Security Operations Security Technology and Response Security Technology and Response Eric Chien Hon Lau Technical Director Manager, Development Security Technology and Response Security Technology and Response Eric Park Candid Wueest Sr. Business Intelligence Analyst Principal Software Engineer Anti-Spam Engineering Security Technology and Response Mathew Maniyara David McKinney Security Response Analyst Principal Threat Analyst Anti-Fraud Response Security Technology and Response Olivier Thonnard Tony Millington Sr. Research Engineer Associate Software Engineer Symantec Research Laboratories Security Technology and Response Pierre-Antoine Vervier Benjamin Nahorney Network Systems Engineer Senior Information Developer Symantec Research Laboratories Security Technology and Response
    [Show full text]